If humans Evolved from Monkeys

What you said is bullshit

 

prove it

prove that my theory is any less credible than some half baked veiws you may have.

until i have better evidence, my veiws are based completely on fact, and are not clouded by the delusions of religion or social pressure.

and rather than simply disown what i have to say, come up with an argument that is equally plausable to my point and try to persuade me to see it your way. im sure anybody with an IQ over 90 could come up with something more provicative than "thats bullshit".

 

Keep in mind that what lead to all this was a mere "theory". There's as much if not more scientific evidence discrediting this theory as there are supporting it. Other examples of historic "theories": The world is flat. The Earth is the center of the universe. The moon is made of cheese. Ok ok the last one wasn't really, but not much more far fetched than the others...which was held to be true for extended periods of time in history.

 

no there isn't.

 

um...yes there are.

 

Theres a lot of evidence supporting natural selection on comparatively short time scales. The process over a longer period of time is far less well determined as I understand it.

 

evolution is a scientific theory, it has evidence for as well as against. on the other hand creationism has no evidence whatsoever

 

tell me about these theories that are at least as credible, and maybe more so, than evolution. i'm curious because i've never heard professors or teachers offer other theories about this. there are a lot of theories about things, often multiple ideas/possibilities, but i think science has pretty much established that evolution is accurate.

 

Nothing serious to add to this debate....just a piece I have and thought I would share....enjoy and think about it


"Monkey Business"
Three monkeys sat in a
coconut tree.
Discussing things as
they're said to be.
Said one to the others,
"Now listen,you two.
There's a certain rumor
that can't be true....
That man descended
from our noble race.
The very idea is a
disgrace!
No monkey ever deserted
his wife,
Straved her babies and
ruined her life....and
you never knew a
mother monk
To leave her babies with
others to bunk,
Or pass them on from
one to another
Till they hardly know
who is their mother
And another thing you'll
never see.
A monk build a fence
around a coconut tree.
And then let the coconuts
go to waste.
Why if I put a fence
around a tree.
Starvation would force
you to steal from me!!
Here's another thing that
a monk won't do...
Go out at night and get on a stew.
Or use a gun,or a club,or
a knife
To take some other
monkey's life.
Yes man DESCENDED,
the ornery cuss,
But brother,he didn't
descend from us!!!!!!

 

I guess the easiest way to prove this point is more by the "lack" of scientific evidence to support Darwinism. I think it might have been mentioned before, there are discoveries to help prove slight physiological changes WITHIN a subgroup or species, there has yet to be proven one species evolving into another. The "missing link", is still, and in my opinion, will always be missing. What science has discovered, is that there are more and more missing links.

I'm not suprised that professors or teachers don't offer this, education is typically controlled by those individuals that have pushed the movements of the 60's, which has an agenda to eliminate spiritual ideas, and promote science as the new religion. Why? There are some concepts which span across most religions, and these concepts aren't politically correct, and hurt certain segment's of societys' "feelings".

Ironically, science and religion tend to agree on alot of these same concepts...a basic definition of life includes the ability to propagate (heterosexual or asexual reproduction), and that most organisms have a dominate gender, whether it be male or female, and roles for each. Very un-pc

 

That is exactly what I believe. There will always be a missing link cause they are looking in the wrong direction.
There is no link.

 

Augh, I can't take it anymore! So much misinformation and misunderstanding about something we know so freakin much about.

Evolution is one thing: a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. That can mean anything from a simple changes in gene frequencies in a group of organisms, or the introduction of new genetic information through mutation and subsequent natural selection.

Anyways, evolution is fact and a theory. All known species on this planet share a single common ancestor- humans, jellyfish, bateria, etc. are all related. That's a fact, and the evidence for it is so overwhelming that to deny it would be almost as nuts as denying that gravity is a fact. Either you haven't been exposed to all the information, or you're unreasonably biased. Seriously folks, its that well supported. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The lite version- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html

Support comes from several main categories. To name a few: the fossil record, modern anatomical differences, observations of natural selection in our current environment, and most of all knowledge of genetics and the wealth of genetic data we've collected. The genetic evidence is so strong that we don't even really need fossils to have good reason to believe in evolution (though the fossil record is important).

When we speak of the theory of evolution, we're talking about the explanation for those facts- so the theory of evolution and the fact that evolution has happened are two distinct and separate things.

The point I'd like to make is that evolutionary theory is simply the absolute, far-and-away, unquestionably best current explanation for how life appears in its present form on Earth, and until someone manages to offer any contrary evidence the only rational thing to do is believe in it. If you disagree with that then I maintain that there's a lot of reading that you really need to do!

 

This thread made my brain melt even more than the "Science is Bullshit" thread.

 

Read it all, and yes it's the most widely held belief by scientists, using random bits of data from this discipline and that. I studied alot of the genetic information and read tons of information about genetic drift and related topics in my "Introduction to Molecular Bacteriological and Virological Pathogenesis" graduate course. One thing that stood out in each and every one of those theories...they always end with a "we're still not exactly sure how that works", or "and we're still studying how it can do that".

What is presented as proposed "facts", are typically explanations of occurances being observed, not how or why. And if you would not merely read and agree to the author's various conclusions(which success or failure of such research has a major determination of whether such studies continue to be funded or not), you'll see that my possibly over-generalized observation that though many interspecies mutations have been well documented, there's no concrete evidence proving conclusively, jumps between species.

Unfortunately, if you don't delve deeper into the literature than to just read what is proposed then agreeing with the conclusion, you'd realize that what is happening in this field is one "theory" being used to "prove" yet another "theory". Reading deeper you'll find that many of these interdisciplinary fields contradict with each other, and rarely do they all agree on anything!

"Evolutionary developmental biology (informally, evo-devo) is a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different animals in an "ATTEMPT" to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved."

"By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can "INFER" the lineages of those species."

"It is from DNA sequence comparisons that figures such as the "95%" similarity between humans and chimpanzees are obtained."

"The Endosymbiotic "THEORY" explains the origin of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells, as the incorporation of an ancient prokaryotic cell into ancient eukaryotic cell. Rather than evolving eukaryotic organelles slowly, this theory offers a mechanism for a sudden evolutionary leap by incorporating the genetic material and biochemical composition of a separate species."

The quote above was discussed in some of my courses, a currently popular "theory". Saying mitochondria didn't "evolve", but were primordial viruses that invaded prehistoric bacteria, and decided to stay, because some of the genetic code is "similar" to viruses...if you want to believe it you may, I don't buy it...and it's unfortunate for some that they are not facts...but THEORIES!!!

And in conclusion, just because you mentioned "misinformation"

"In biology, the "THEORY" of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool."

This coming from your own source. Ironic how coming from someone starting the post with an outrage of the "misinformation", you tried to pass this "theory" as fact...but then again, so do most Evolutionists these days!!

Cheers.

 

Science isn't bullshit, just some theories within the heading of science

 

Since you obviously don't know the definition of a theory, I find it hard to believe you've been within a kilometre of a science textbook not originating from some Creationist diploma mill, letalone an actual science course.

Your semantics whoring disproves nothing.

 

darwin's work has all been relseased for free on the net, read up and form a view from there.

 

Form a view? You make it sound like science is a democracy. There are people with views that the Earth is still flat. Doesn't change the fact that they're totally wrong.

I'd love to hear what the anti-evolution crowd has as an alternative theory. Lemme guess, Intelligent Design?

 

They were happy days when this debate had anything to do with where life comes from. Now it seems if your not a follower of a western religion you place yourself roughly in the evolution camp and if your are a follower of western religion the you follow ID. Any actual evidence seems to have prescious little to do with it. The fact is there isnt a lot of evidence for either evolution over long time scales or ID, though from what ive read they maybe experimentally indistinguishable anyway. This debate may not have much to do with science but if everyone just admitted that it was being used to prop up their religious beliefs at least it would be honest.

 

It's really too bad, then, that evolution has stood up to nearly two centuries of ruthless scrutiny, is accepted by all major scientific institutions and scientists the world over.

The evidence for evolution is bountiful, so don't try and tell me otherwise. The evidence for ID, however, is about as common as the evidence for færies, unicorns and Allah. You may as well say that prayer or astrology are science if you accept ID has any real scientific backing behind it. It is, and always will be, Creationism in a cheap tuxedo. The choice "theory" for Christian fundies who lap up the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I bet next you're going to say that science and atheism are a religion and that I'm simply voicing my opinion on how we came about. It's a common fallacy and one I shall enjoy taking apart, if indeed you do go that route. You're smarter than that.